This might be totally obvious and barely worth noting, or maybe it's totally wrong... but it seems cool and wanted to run it by folks.

You know how sometimes in stories you have a character (could be MC, but could be IC or any OS character) that is always trying a certain thing and not really getting very far, but you still are rooting for them and hoping it will work out? And then at some point in the story they face a big setback and seem to temporarily give up?

At least some of those cases seem to be really well modeled with Dramatica's Response appreciation, by using the sudden embracing of "lack of" version of the Response element.

Like say you have a lawyer whose best friend is in prison, and is afraid that he's going to get hurt or killed with all the wild stuff that can go on in there -- to him it's a totally Uncontrolled place. So he keeps trying to pull strings to Control things in there (e.g. trying to get the friend's enemy moved to a different prison), but it keeps backfiring, and the friend tells him to stop, he's just making it worse. So at some point the lawyer just throws up his hands and gives up, and goes out to get severely drunk -- i.e. responds with lack of Control. (Note: situation taken from Suits season 5, but just as an example; no attempt to determine real storyform.)

Now that I typed it, the same example might work even better with Hinder and Help, but you can see what I mean -- the "lack of" an Element is so noticeable because he's giving up on what he was doing all along. And because Dramatica allows "lack of" as a valid instance of that Response element, it still works in the structure.

Thoughts? Am I out to lunch? I think this can apply equally well to MC, IC, and OS characters, and probably also to RS throughline -- like when a relationship where they keep trying to Pursue each other faces such a setback that they give up on getting together (but this giving up puts their relationship in an even worse place).

I'm looking at the uncontrolled/control part of the example. In that example, is the lawyer responding to the uncontrolled prison environment with an attempt to control and then switching to a lack of control? Or is he responding to his inability to control (by pulling strings) with a lack of control (giving up and drinking)? Either way, the progression certainly seems like a plausibly realistic reaction, so I can't see why it wouldn't work.

I was hoping to see some other replies to this, maybe some advanced theory about how to determine which elements should be positive or negative. But I've mostly had the idea that that was up o the storyteller.

It really does and I wish I could always keep it in mind that the negative side of the element is just as valid. My initial response though is to consider the positive side of the element first everytime.

My read on your example here is that the jail is Control -- I mean, isn't that why we put criminals there? -- and his response of trying this, trying that, and then acting out is Uncontrolled.

But this doesn't seem to get at your actual question of "giving up" -- which does happen. In movies with a big setback, I think I would see that as a place for the character to step back and reassess things like "Consequences" or "Requirements" -- I'm not sure I'm up for this, I'm not sure I'm ready to make the sacrifice. Then something comes along to nudge them forward.

i don't mean to sidetrack the discussion, but is that how you would read it if being in jail wasnt the main source of conflict? In the example above, I get the idea that the lawyer isn't trying to get his friend out of jail, necessarily, but trying to get him away from other dangerous inmates. Like, say the lawyer is fine with the friend being jail, but not in the wing where there's a riot?

I like the thought that the setback may be that character toying with the idea of accepting the consequences.

With the lawyer example, @Gregolas had the right idea of what I was going for. The idea was he's a high-powered lawyer used to being able to control almost any situation. And the prison is like this wall beyond which he can't see what's going on or control anything, and some wild stuff starts happening in there, so that's what he sees the problem is. But note in the actual show it might have been better as Hinder and Help, since the friend literally said he didn't want his help, it was making things worse.

I have an example of this type of Symptom/Response in my own story, I just used the lawyer example to make things simpler. Now that I think about it, it might be something like you said too -- the character temporarily gives up because he's not up to disobeying his parents, which his brother makes a Precondition or Prerequisite (I think). Then someone comes along later who makes disobeying his parents seem worth it.

What I was reacting to was the switch to lack of Control... this didn't really feel right to me, mostly because it is not something that he thinks can solve the problem. He's trying to solve it, trying to solve it, and then... tantrum. There is a shift here.

It might work better to think of this like a circuit: His friend is in a wild place --> he pushes to control --> his friend hinders him by telling him to stop --> he feels helpless, so he drinks.

Okay, I see where you are coming from now. You're right, it is weird to have a Response that isn't about trying to solve or address the symptom (what he thinks is the problem). And I can see the way your circuit works, that's pretty cool...

But on the other hand, maybe it shows someone who is a Do-er struggling with a problem and trying to solve it preferentially by Doing, but when that doesn't work he switches modes to solve it by Be-ing (trying to accept things as they are, but that's so difficult it requires getting drunk).

A circuit is what I was trying to think of it as as well. I recently read Jim Hull's Narrative First article Four Acts, Not Three that talks about a similar circuit/sequence in Jaws.

I was also kind of looking at it as the friend being in jail (or in danger while in jail) was the problem, but maybe the lawyer thinks the problem is his inability to help (symptom) and his drinking is the response to that. Would the lawyers response to the symptom have to be something the lawyer thinks could fix the symptom, or could the response just be the way he reacts to the symptom?

But on the other hand, maybe it shows someone who is a Do-er struggling with a problem and trying to solve it preferentially by Doing, but when that doesn't work he switches modes to solve it by Be-ing (trying to accept things as they are, but that's so difficult it requires getting drunk).

I this this is a great way to think of this, for a thought experiment. It's been plucked out of the fabric of the story, though, so I wouldn't invest too much in the idea that this is indelibly correct. It could simply be that the character in question has a trait of "Emotion/Uncontrolled/Reaction/Nonacceptance"...

Would the lawyers response to the symptom have to be something the lawyer thinks could fix the symptom, or could the response just be the way he reacts to the symptom?

Strictly, the Response is how a character tries to solve a problem, but is really only minimizing conflict. Getting drunk is a great way to think there is no conflict! (Think of how many people live their actual lives this way.)

My point, I think we have to be open to characters acting like people. Not everything they do has to be dictated by the storyform. Nor should it be.

You're right, that lawyer example was plucked out of the story, and partially made up. I can add the example from my own story (in detailed outline stage currently) since I think the storyform is pretty solid...

Darwin is an OS character, and the OS is Activity/Obtaining/Attitude/Oppose with Symptom of Hinder and Response of Help. I think Darwin also represents Support as an OS character, and at one point I pencilled him in for Acceptance but I don't remember why.

Anyway, Darwin is a young man whose grandfather was a famous warrior and he wants to follow in his grandfather's footsteps but his parents are against that. They want him to help with the family business (bakery) and don't want him to train as a warrior. Meanwhile, he is pretty screwed in terms of being a warrior because he has moderate asthma, and there are no asthma inhalers in this late-medieval-ish fantasy world. He does spend a lot of time with a family friend, "uncle" Lewan who was a comrade of his grandfather's, but Herr Lewan only trains him in woodcraft etc. because he's respecting Darwin's parents wishes. Darwin soaks up all the hunting and endurance training he can though.

Some bad stuff happens (demons! oh noes!) and Darwin almost gets killed, so Herr Lewan decides to go against the parents and train Darwin to be a warrior. (Note Action driver.) The training goes well technique-wise, but Darwin's asthma always holds him back. He tries to solve it by asking for more training, doing more mountain running (to help build up his lungs), etc. Then his brother (the "good son" who's happy to be a baker) finds out and rats on him, and his parents forbid him from even seeing Herr Lewan again. At this point Darwin is dismayed and basically gives up, telling Herr Lewan they have to stop the training -- it's helpless anyway, he was never going to be a real warrior.(Don't worry, later the MC will show up, a pretty girl who needs his help even though she doesn't want it. This gives him the "nudge forward" you mentioned.)

Okay, so the giving up there:

could be his Response of Help moving from regular Help (seeking aid in the form of training, helping to build up his lungs, etc.) to lack-of-Help (deciding it's helpless, not training).Note the way his asthma hinders him is a Symptom. His brother telling his parents and their forbidding him is another Symptom, I think.

could be his deciding that the Prerequisite isn't worth it. The Prerequisite is Developing a Plan, i.e. having to scheme and figure out a way to disobey his parents and keep training behind their backs.

it could be something to do with him representing Acceptance or Support (accepting and/or supporting his parents' decision)

acting like a real person

I go with all of the above! But what do you think?

Also because of some stuff I won't go into here, it actually makes sense that he has to figure out a way to continue training as a Prerequisite for the Requirements of Understanding (i.e. understanding what causes his asthma).

Yah, don't forget that Mitchell started out with Scarlett as a minor character and it was to be Melanie's story, or something like. Then, Tolstoy whacked off the first three chapters of Anna Karenina for the novel's final starting point.